It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Rejects Measure to Continue US Role in Libya

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Link


The House has voted down a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military action against Libya.

The vote was 295-123 on Friday. The congressional action has no immediate effect on American involvement but represents a repudiation of the commander in chief.

The vote marks the first time since 1999 that either House has voted against a military operation. The last time was over President Bill Clinton's authority in the Bosnian war.

House Republican leaders pushed for the vote, with rank-and-file members saying the president broke the law by failing to seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old war. Some Democrats accused the GOP of playing politics with national security.


It is about time they stop these unconstitutional wars which are bleeding us of our financial resources. President Obama never even addressed Congress about this intervention before he engaged in it, perhaps he believes the United Nations should always be addressed and have the final say in regards to United States military operations. I am sorry Mr. President but that could not be further from reality. You must get approval from the Congress of the United States before any military intervention overseas.

While this may not actually be the law now it signals a dramatic change among the representatives in our government. Liberal Democrats and many Republicans came together on a vote to tell the President, 'No you do not have the right to start and open ended engagement without even consulting us then say you do not have to obey the 1973 War Powers Act'.

This may just be symbolic but at least the Congress has done something right.
edit on 6/24/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

edit on Fri Jun 24 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Wow, no doubt my friend. I am humbly surprised by this news. Perhaps this is evidence that the entire game isn't completely rigged.

We shall see!

S+F.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Thank goodness at least some members of Congress remember we have a freakin' Constitution!!! About time.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I just want to know one thing.

Is Congress still paying for this war?


They control the purse.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Wow, no doubt my friend. I am humbly surprised by this news. Perhaps this is evidence that the entire game isn't completely rigged.

We shall see!

S+F.


Nah...they just want to be able to vote on it so that earmarks can be added into the next bill passed to fund the mission in Libya. Everybody wants a piece of the action.

But, since it abides by the Constitution, I am in favor of this vote. I just don't think they have the good of the country as their motivating factor.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Yes they did vote to continue the funding. The only reason it passed too was that the White House sent en mass its lobbying group to meet with Liberal Democrats, even Hillary Clinton spoke with them.

Link


It appears that a last-minute White House lobbying effort to stave off Democratic defections worked — at least on the spending-limitation bill. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked House Democrats to back their president in a closed-door meeting in the Capitol on Thursday, and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon summoned a small group of liberals to the Situation Room at 7 a.m. Friday for a classified briefing that may have influenced a handful of votes.


So many of the Liberal Democrats who first voted to reject continuing the US role in Libya then flipped their vote on funding.
edit on 6/24/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Good job. Now al they have to do is make the same case for Iraq and A-Stan, and we can bring the troops home, once and for all, and stop wasting lives on this ill-advised attempt at politics-thru-the-gunsight! This should be the point in out history were the legislative branch should Wake there asses up once and for all and make sure that if we as a country decide to use our armed forces on a foriegn soil in the future, it's because it's a matter of our national security. OUR national security.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Of course. But now they won't just get the bill to pay, they get to vote on it first. Obama overstepped his authority in Libya and I am glad someone at least is taking notice and doing something about it.

This vote is really nothing more than a statement to Obama. A chastising if you will. It has no immediate effect that I can see.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Where was the GOP and the rest of congress when Bush committed troops to Iraq? It's funny how the GOP and the rest of congress covers one eye about the illegal war in Iraq and than rejects the U.S. role in Libya. I don't agree we should be involved in Libya, but this is more political posturing by the GOP. If Bush was in office would they be as critical about U.S. support? I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by jam321
 


Yes they did vote to continue the funding. The only reason it passed too was after this vote the White House sent en mass its lobbying group to meet with Liberal Democrats, even Hillary Clinton spoke with them.

So many of the Liberal Democrats who first voted to reject continuing the US role in Libya then flipped their vote on funding.


What about the 89 republicans that voted against defunding? I suppose they are all closet liberal democrats...


The roll call vote exposed splits in both parties. Over 30 Democrats voted to defund the NATO-led mission, while 89 Republicans voted against the measure backed by GOP leaders.


www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I never said Republicans did not vote to continue war funding. It would have been better if I elaborated further but thanks for adding that article.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Link


The House has voted down a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military action against Libya.

...You must get approval from the Congress of the United States before any military intervention overseas...

.
edit on 6/24/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)


Actually, one point. The president can send troops for up to 90 days before seeking Congressional approval. So, technically, he is only in violation of the War Powers Act after that 90 days runs out.

But I'm glad Congress ended up on the right side of this one. extra DIV



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Breaking News story
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Since this thread is a duplicate, it is now closed.



Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion(s).
Thank you

for future reference:
Search ATS



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6

log in

join